Sunday, May 15, 2005
Law enforcement must adopt and publicize guidelines for stun gun use
Reports continue to pile about law enforcement's possible misuse of stun guns. Even though the degree of public and media outcry over stun guns may be unwarranted, it is time for law enforcement to develop guidelines for these weapons' use.
A unified stance must communicate responsibility. It wouldn't hurt for law enforcement to publicize these guidelines, once developed. Right now, police across the country are getting an earful about how bad stun guns are. A few bad apples have given law enforcement a bad name in the stun gun debate. It's time to fix this image problem.
Some reports of alleged stun gun misuse have been egregious.
Atlanta, Ga.'s WXIA-TV News 11 ran a story on an incident that occurred at a prison in the state's Gwinnett County. A videotape of the incident showed guards stunning an inmate five times. The man later died.
The news we see about stun guns typically skews toward the negative. Incidents such as the death at Gwinnett County's jail will always command widespread media coverage. Such a story is tragic, and the circumstances demand investigation. Yet many people are not being killed, and it is precisely because police officers now have the choice of drawing stun guns instead of firearms.
Media opinion pages continue to react to the perceived problems of stun gun safety. On May 3, the St. Petersburg Times published an editorial questioning the wisdom behind stun gun sales to civilians, a market that the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, Arizona-based Taser International, is pursuing.
There is a growing backlash to stun guns. While the question of whether civilians should be able to use stun guns is another matter—and I believe they should—law enforcement can do much to rehabilitate its own image in this area. I urge law enforcement agencies to develop and then aggressively publicize well-thought-out guidelines to govern stun gun use.
Reports continue to pile about law enforcement's possible misuse of stun guns. Even though the degree of public and media outcry over stun guns may be unwarranted, it is time for law enforcement to develop guidelines for these weapons' use.
A unified stance must communicate responsibility. It wouldn't hurt for law enforcement to publicize these guidelines, once developed. Right now, police across the country are getting an earful about how bad stun guns are. A few bad apples have given law enforcement a bad name in the stun gun debate. It's time to fix this image problem.
Some reports of alleged stun gun misuse have been egregious.
Atlanta, Ga.'s WXIA-TV News 11 ran a story on an incident that occurred at a prison in the state's Gwinnett County. A videotape of the incident showed guards stunning an inmate five times. The man later died.
The news we see about stun guns typically skews toward the negative. Incidents such as the death at Gwinnett County's jail will always command widespread media coverage. Such a story is tragic, and the circumstances demand investigation. Yet many people are not being killed, and it is precisely because police officers now have the choice of drawing stun guns instead of firearms.
Media opinion pages continue to react to the perceived problems of stun gun safety. On May 3, the St. Petersburg Times published an editorial questioning the wisdom behind stun gun sales to civilians, a market that the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, Arizona-based Taser International, is pursuing.
There is a growing backlash to stun guns. While the question of whether civilians should be able to use stun guns is another matter—and I believe they should—law enforcement can do much to rehabilitate its own image in this area. I urge law enforcement agencies to develop and then aggressively publicize well-thought-out guidelines to govern stun gun use.
# posted by IDTheftSecurity.com @ 9:02 AM 
